S faced serious charges of defrauding Customs and Excise. After allegations of jury tampering came to light, a decision was made for trial by judge alone, and his bail was revoked. He now sought judicial review of the refusal of bail. He challenged the use of a closed evidence procedure ensuring that only partial disclosure had been made to him of the grounds on which bail had been refused.
Held: The bail decision was quashed. This court had not seen the closed material. The use of special procedures where the personal liberty of a defendant is at stake, required a differential approach. The person suspected of jury tampering was the man who had driven the defendant to court each day. A special advocate ought to have been appointed for the bail application. The result might be no different, and administrative inconvenience may be caused. What is at stake for the defendant is liberty for a period of some 6 months (the equivalent of a sentence of 1 year’s imprisonment). This is substantial, and mere administrative inconvenience is no answer.
Langstaff J
[2010] EWHC 723 (Admin), [2010] 2 Cr App R 23, [2010] ACD 53, [2010] UKHRR 828
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Shergill, Regina (on the Application of) v Harrow Crown Court and Another Admn 7-Apr-2005
The defendant appealed against refusal of bail. Collins J said that the expression ‘early stage of criminal proceedings’, which was required to be found to allow a civil challenge, ‘has a penumbra of uncertainty around it’. . .
Cited – M v Isleworth Crown Court and Another Admn 2-Mar-2005
The court considered an appeal by way of judicial review of a refusal of bail.
Held: There was jurisdiction to consider a claim that bail had been refused in circumstances which showed that that refusal was erroneous in law, but that it was . .
Cited – Malik v Central Criminal Court and Another Admn 27-Jun-2006
Application for judicial review of refusal to hear bail application in public. The bail application before the magistrates had been held in public, but not that to the crown court, as was normal practice. The issue on such an application is not the . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF AN and AE (No 3) HL 10-Jun-2009
The applicants complained that they had been made subject to non-derogating control orders as suspected terrorists, but that the failure to inform them of the allegations or evidence against them was unfair and infringed their human rights. The . .
Cited – A and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 19-Feb-2009
(Grand Chamber) The applicants had been subjected to severe restrictions. They were foreign nationals suspected of terrorist involvement, but could not be deported for fear of being tortured. The UK had derogated from the Convention to put the . .
Cited – T and Others Regina v CACD 5-Jun-2009
The court gave guidance to judges on how to apply the 2003 Act where jury tampering had been established. In general, ‘save in unusual circumstances, the judge faced with this problem should order not only the discharge of the jury but that he . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v AHK and Others (Practice Note) CA 2-Apr-2009
Sir Anthony Clarke MR gave guidance as to the circumstances in which a special advocate could be appointed, describing the roles of the special advocate representing a party who is not allowed to see closed material: ‘They are well understood and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice, Human Rights
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.410568